3.7.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 235/47
Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul Commission Decision dated 6 February 2023 rejecting the applicants’ request for internal review; — order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicants rely on fourteen pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision dated 6 February 2023 (‘the Contested Decision’) errs in law and/or makes errors of assessment in interpreting Article 19(1)(f), of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) as to the requirement for Technical Screening Criteria (‘TSC’) to be based on conclusive scientific evidence and the precautionary principle.
With regard to nuclear activities 2.
Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or makes errors of assessment in rejecting the argument that the TSC for nuclear power do not comply with the requirement for ‘best performance in the sector’ under Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation 2020/852. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or makes errors of assessment in rejecting the ground that the criteria in the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 (2) do not comply with Article 10(2) of Regulation 2020/852 (‘transition to a climate-neutral economy’). 4.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or makes errors of assessment in rejecting the ground that nuclear power does not contribute substantially to climate change adaptation under Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation 2020/852. 5.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law, makes errors of assessment, and/or provides inadequate reasons, in rejecting the submission that nuclear activities do not satisfy the ‘do no significant harm’ requirement of Articles 3, 9 and 17 of Regulation 2020/852. 6.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or erred in assessment, and/or provides inadequate reasoning, in rejecting the ground that there was an infringement of the requirement for minimum safeguards for nuclear activities under Articles 3(c) and 18 of Regulation 2020/852.
With regard to fossil gas activities 7.
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or made errors of assessment in rejecting the submission that the emissions thresholds set for fossil gas activities are contrary to the requirements of Article 10(2) of Regulation 2020/852. 8.
Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or made errors of assessment in rejecting the ground that the inclusion of fossil gas activities would hamper the development and deployment of low-carbon alternatives, contrary to Article 10(2) of Regulation 2020/852. 9.
Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or made errors of assessment in rejecting the ground that the TSC for Fossil Gas are contrary to the requirement under Article 10(2) of Regulation 2020/852 that no low carbon alternative is available. 10.
Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision errs in law and/or made errors of assessment in rejecting the ground that the classification of fossil gas activities as sustainable is contrary to the requirement in Article 10(2)(c) of Regulation 2020/852 that an activity must not lead to a lock-in of carbon-intensive assets.